Le Différend in International Relations and Law

The idea of ​​narrative rationality began to be further developed around the 1980s (Robinson, 2011), giving rise to the possibility of examining narratives and the reality they construct. One of the authors who would have the most impact in this area was Jean-François Lyotard. The idea of ​​narrative rationality can be applied in various fields, for example in Law and even in International Relations.

In law, narrative rationality can be primarily considered during the presentation of evidence. At this stage, each party in litigation narrates its own version of the facts. Bernard Jackson (1995) even distinguishes between two levels of narration. The first is “The Story in the Trial”, which refers to the story of the external world to which the law is applied in court. The second is “The Story of the Trial”, which concerns the way that story is narrated within the courtroom. This includes, for example, situations in which a witness contradicts themselves or an expert is appointed by one of the parties.

In International Relations, we can also observe these dynamics. When subjects of International Law (States, International Organizations, and Civil Society) develop narratives to justify certain practices (Gang, 2022) – for example: “I, as a State, will intervene militarily in another State because it protects a terrorist organization that threatens my sovereignty.”

Le Différend

According to Lyotard (1988), a distinction must be made between litigation and dispute the latter being known as the Différend. During litigation, we have a set of arguments from several parties, but which are developed within the same regime (parliamentary, within a court, in the functioning of an international organization, etc.) and apply to each specific case.

In a dispute, we have a conflict between two or more parties that cannot be resolved because there is a lack of a framework to apply to the development of arguments from both sides. One of the ideas that Lyotard presents is precisely that between the colonizer and the colonized, that is, between the oppressor and the oppressed (Gratton, 2018).

A stack of philosophy books. Photo by Karl Raymund Catabas on Unsplash

Consequently, it is possible to apply this idea of ​​the dispute to international relations: sometimes, we do not find a litigation between two parties, but a dispute, because they will apply a different narrative regime, which causes their arguments, their narratives, to be interpreted in a way that is particular to them, making it impossible for there to be a reconciliation between the parties.

However, this is where what Lyotard considers "a wrong" arises (Gratton, 2018): a set of harms that cannot be disclosed  by the victims. They do not lack the words, but the victim’s experience cannot be adequately expressed because the rules of reality are not compatible with the experience of the victims, silencing them and making the harm cause to them difficult to prove.

Therefore, for justice to exist, new regimes must be created, and we must set aside the narrative regimes that dominate the other.

The plurality of regimes is obvious, but what is unjust is the use of one of these regimes to silence the other, becoming hegemonic, making it impossible for others to express their narrative. In this way, we can call the unjust as unjust.

The Narrative Shift in International Relations

From the 2000s onwards, it is possible to observe a shift in narrative rationality within International Relations. The idea is that subjects of International Law construct and act according to a set of narratives, and therefore, the historical analysis of these narratives is an appropriate means to understand existing geopolitical dynamics. In other words, narration, and the analysis of these narratives, is also a mode of understanding (Roberts, 2006).

Once again, Lyotard, in his book "Le Différend," speaks of what he considers to be the dark side of communicability. In very simple terms, narrative discourse is not intended to be a single entity, but rather one with differentiated codes (regimes), with rules and canons in different areas. This plurality of codes also exists in International Relations, for example, in legal aspects, economic aspects, or moral aspects.

All these codes are designed with difference in mind, but there may be an overlap between them when we find similarities – thus helping us to witness this difference, but they also have the potential to distance it. (Gratton, 2018)

In this way, we have to understand that the “narrative turn” that we see in IR is also a possibility of determining how certain narratives, developed through certain codes, become hegemonic narratives and produce the so-called “wrongs” (Darzi, 2021).  

Well, bearing this in mind, it becomes difficult to view some current situations as merely regional conflicts or litigation between States , but, as Lyotard establishes, as genuine différend.

Israel's constant use of concepts such as "counterterrorism" (Khan, 2025) not only serves to justify its actions from the perspective of International Law, but also to frame its actions by reviving the narrative of a "civilized West" against a "violent and irrational Muslim world" (Ali, 2024).

By recognizing that this is the hegemonic narrative, the idea that Israel is part of this West and a generalization of Palestinians as terrorists and part of this irrational world will be reinforced, giving rise to what Lyotard called "a wrong": a questioning of legitimate claims and a difficulty in conveying the harm caused to them.

In Myanmar, where a genocide against the Rohingya has been acknowledged to be ongoing for several years (Amnesty International, 2025) there is also a narrative developed by the authorities that all actions affecting this ethnic group are merely security measures (RK News Desk, 2025). And, in this case, there has been a blinding lack of coverage.

In both cases, and many others we could mention, considering Lyotard’s work, it is not simply a matter of balancing two distinct narrative regimes. Rather, it concerns distancing ourselves from hegemonic narrative regimes that obscure or call into question the manifestation of the harm done to one of the parties in the dispute. In this way, we can call the unjust as unjust.

Bibliography

1. Ali, N. (2024, October 10). Law, Narrative, War and Revolution. OpinioJuris. https://opiniojuris.org/2024/10/22/law-narrative-war-and-revolution/

2. Amnesty International. (2025, August 22). 8 Years On: Accountability needed for Myanmar atrocities against Rohingya. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/8-years-on-accountability-needed-for-myanmar-atrocities-against-rohingya/.

3. Darzi, E. (June 8, 2021). Critical Theory for Political Theology 2.0 – Jean-François Lyotard. Political Theology Network. https://politicaltheology.com/jean-francois-lyotard/.

4. Gang, H. (2022). The Application of Narrative Research in International Relations. Atlantis Press. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/iclace-22/125976137

5. Gratton, P. (2018). Jean-François Lyotard. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lyotard/

6. Jackson, B. S. (1995). Making Sense in Law – Linguistic, Psychological and Semiotic Perspectives (pp. 140–180). Deborah Charles Publications.

7. Khan, S. (2025, November 26). Israel Launches Major New Operation in Northern West Bank. Modern Diplomacy. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/11/26/israel-launches-major-new-operation-in-northern-west-bank/

8. Lyotard, J.-F. (1988). The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. Minnesota Press.

9. Roberts, G. (2006). History, Theory and the Narrative Turn in IR. Review of International Studies, Vol.32, N.º4, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40072179.

10. Robinson, A. (2011). Narrating the Past: Historiography, Memory and the Contemporary Novel (pp. 3–24). Palgrave Macmillan.

11. Rohingya, K. (2025, December 3). The Price of Protection: How Security Narratives Strip Rohingya Refugees of Rights. https://rohingyakhobor.com/the-price-of-protection-how-security-narratives-strip-rohingya-refugees-of-rights/.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.